Companions

You may have seen the story last week: an older Missouri woman whose mother had died was denied communion when the mother’s obituary listed her and her female “partner” as survivors. Her Catholic pastor saw this, and called her to let her know that she was not to receive the Eucharist if she was living with another woman.

The woman had been a member of the parish for twelve years, was a cantor and lector and sang in the choir. While the priest was newly ordained -why does that not surprise me?- and did not know the woman well, she apparently was not calling attention to herself.

Until her mother died.

Aside from the appalling timing of his decision to deny communion to her, was this at all justifiable? Would he treat a heterosexual that he suspected of sin the same way? Call every couple who had been married for over ten years but had only one or two children and announce that he knew they were using contraception and were to no longer approach communion?

The question answers itself. I have attended Sunday liturgy my whole life, aside from a late adolescent lapse. I can count the times I have heard contraception mentioned on one hand. And I have never heard it said from the pulpit that married couples who are not toeing the line on all matters sexual are to abstain from communion. One can never presume anything about a particular couple and what they do at home, alone. If one could make such assumptions I know a lot of married Eastern Catholic priests who would be in big trouble; I know of few with more than two children.

No priest can ordain himself as moral inquisitor; such matters are best left to the confessional. It would be different, of course, in the unlikely event that a contracepting couple was bragging about it at coffee and donuts, or hosting seminars on the Pill. Then the priest would have an obligation to act to avoid scandal.

And so with the woman in question: all the priest knew was that she was living with another woman in some sort of committed relationship. Obviously, she was not flaunting her orientation or her alleged sins. She was discreet, and for all he knows, committing no sin at all.

In fact, many homosexuals have found that life and virtue are much easier if they are in a committed relationship with another person. Many faithful priests who have worked with those who experience same-sex attraction agree that this is the case; that isolation and loneliness are greater “occasions of sin” than than living in a committed and affectionate relationship.

Here is one woman, from a Catholic online forum:

I am a 24 year-old lesbian and a recent convert to the faith. Deciding to become Catholic was a difficult and wonderful process (falling in love with the Faith but also realizing I had to let go of my sexuality). Ironically the person who introduced me to Catholicism was the lesbian woman I was falling in love with. We both new that we had a choice: continue to be sexually active with one another, or commit to and follow the teachings of the Church. As hard as it is to give up the desires of the flesh, we knew by reason and faith…our only choice was to follow God through the Church’s teaching. We have both been celibate for roughly a year. We have also been living together as companions … I believe this may be a rare phenomenon and this situation is not something that has been addressed by any church leaders to the best of my knowledge. I did however speak to a nun who said that although we are not committing a mortal sin by living together and loving one another, we may be putting ourselves into an “occasion of sin,” meaning we could easily be tempted into sin by our situation. The thing is, I think it would be more of an occasion for sin if I did not have this woman as my partner because she constantly supports me and encourages me to resist sin. If I were alone I would be much more likely to be impure. Plus, like many people I need to be close to someone in a relationship of love, trust, and commitment. I am wondering what other thoughtful Catholics think and feel about this.

In fact the Church is facing a new situation in its pastoral life. For the first time “out” gay people who love Christ and want to participate in the life of the Church are in our midst. Eve Tushnet has written about this situation at some length. The Church need not change any of its teachings to react to this new thing with love and with understanding. Certainly emotionally committed relationships ought not be discouraged, and assumptions ought no more be made about them than with heterosexual couples. Probably they should refer to each other as “companions” rather than the more charged “partners”, but same-sex attraction ought not be a sentence to a lonely life. Catholics in such companionate relationships ought not be the targets of suspicion any more than married couples are.

For polls show that some 90% or more of Catholic couples do not observe church pronouncements on contraception. Should couples with suspiciously few children receive phone calls from their pastor cautioning them against approaching the Eucharist?

And I don’t know of any polls on the matter, but I am willing to guess that 90% or more of single Catholic men masturbate, at least sometimes. Should pastors assume that unmarried men are in sin, and deny them communion?

Of course not, and homosexuals should not face a higher standard than heterosexuals.

Some may object that if the Church accepted such relationships that many, or most, involved in them would fall into sexual sin at some point. Granted. We are all prone to sin, and sexual sin is not uncommon: the married man who pulls out at the last minute to avoid pregnancy, the single person who falls into masturbation, the priest who looks at internet porn in a weak moment. But of all sins, a sin of weakness committed with a loving companion is surely among the least.

We are called to view others’ actions in the most charitable light, not assuming evil of them. Even if we are shocked and let down by them over and over -and I guarantee we will be- we must persevere in this, for the good of our souls and the salvation of others.

And for those who sin, we owe only mercy,

Share this:

Like this:

Related

47 Responses

To be honest, I’m not certain this isn’t due to a cultural thing particular to the modern West. Culturally, we construct what is and is not an acceptable show of affection between men and women. Certainly cultures which hold to men only being allowed to dance with other men – or patriarchal, gender rigid cultures which value male-male friendships more highly (Greek, Roman, Israelite, Norse, etc.) and thus allow for a greater show of affection – wouldn’t necessarily mean homosexuality. The same goes for standards of beauty over time. In America, especially, we seem to have romanticized the concept of marriage on such a pedestal that anything similar to or the highest affection is reserved for the the procreative male-female relationship defined as marriage – disallowing any kind of continuum with regards to affective feelings. It seems to me this is concurrent perhaps with a traditional Protestant West (no pejorative comment intended) which values procreative family over celibacy, thus alienating the whole concept of celibate living or societies of just men or just women as somehow “normal.” Thus the most basic human relation in the modern West as matter of course becomes the male-female dipole not simply as in terms of biology but in terms of social relations.

I’m not saying that this is a kind of Freudian repression, but that friendships like the ones you describe would more easily blend in as friendships ultimately valuable within themselves with the continuum of “normal” in the past, i.e., without being unfulfilling forms of love, – indeed as forms of love acceptable and presentable alongside the one form of love particularly enshrined in marriage.

Remind me again why I belong to an institution that would do this? The double standard you highlight between the assumptions made about the homosexual and heterosexual is spot on. So much for mercy. If this is the ship to salvation, I am really nervous.

No it’s really not just one priest – it’s also all the Catholics who will excuse that priest’s behavior. There are those who will not just defend him, but applaud his efforts to uphold the teachings of the church. Makes me a little ill.

I’m not surprised. My parish has parishioners who have gotten invalidly ordained- both married and female- giving the pastor trouble with the Archbishop.

The wish to “normalize” that which will never be normal, is strong. I wish I understood why. I have no such wish with my Asperger’s. I see the value of autistic people in society, and a few of us are successful, but it’s a tough enough road to hoe without wishing everybody else was like us.

Hey I loved this post, DAn! I have a sister who is in a lesbian relationship with a woman and she oddly enough has come closer to Christ since she started caring about another person. I don’t agree with homosexual unions and accept the church’s teaching but I also feel like actions like the above mentioned priest are not going to help us bring these people back to Christ.
I would have no problem with gay couples living chastely togetherness s long as they are supporting each other’s celibate lifestyle.

Also I had two (straight) maiden great aunts who lived together for decades so I fail to see why we should banish people to isolation just because they haven’t found a heterosexual marriage to enter. That’s crazy. If you reserve sexual relations for marriage there are all sorts of crazy cool communal living situations that totally work. nuclear family is a weird modern thing anyway,

The “chaste” gays seem to be shaking things up a bit. It irks me that they need to identify themselves as “chaste” in order to have any credibility, but I suppose given the assumptions many Catholics make about them, they have no choice.

Since when have single Catholic straight people had to do such a thing? Sigh.

Thank God we don’t all have to go around identifying ourselves as “”non-contracepting” Catholics in order to be respected or have any credibility whatsoever. I’d be screwed. As it is, my six kids keep me safely within the respected crowd in the pews.

How about a little of that mercy for the priest, and maybe a little less rash judgement.To publicly refuse Communion to someone, they have to be a public and manifest sinner. The priest in question obviously knows this. The woman’s sin seemed to have become public. I assume the priest called the women to find out what her situation was, and later after he determined that the women in question rejected some Catholic teaching (I don’t know like the Church’s teaching on homosexual relations being immoral) he then told her she could no longer receive communion. As to her being steadfast in her sin, I think the woman’s reaction is proof of that. She immediately went to news outlets with her story of woe.

As to a double standard that is ridiculous. I will bet money on the fact that if the priest in question found out a heterosexual man was living with someone he was not married to, he would deny him communion as well. Unfortunately, your other examples are not public sins, so a priest can not withhold communion for married couples that contracept, or a single man that masturbates.

The priest handled this in secret. He did not denounce the women from the pulpit. He told her privately she could not receive Communion. The woman then decides to go public. The way you portrayed the priest throughout the post is reprehensible. You have no idea what the woman in question said to the priest or why he did what he did. (And quite frankly you make it seem as if the priest knew it to be a chaste relationship, with the examples you bring up). Finally, how do you know it was not a scandal in the parish? How do you know that a member of the parish did not come to him with the story? Do you some how think the priest in question is on a witch hunt to deny homosexuals communion? Are you really that cynical? It looks to me as if the priest was put in a very bad situation.

Finally, while I do believe that there can be a double standard with say the sins of adultery and homosexual relations, with some Catholics considering homosexual relations to be virtually the unforgivable sin (although I have met women who seemed to feel that way about adultery), I really do not think there is anything to suggest that type of thinking in this case. Let’s not presume bad will and bigotry on the part of priest.

First, I do have mercy on the priest. The first reports said he was an old school priest but when I heard that he had only been ordained last spring it all made sense. When I was in the seminary lo those many years ago, in the 80s, the big fight was about doctrinal orthodoxy and moral teaching. Some of my friends and I were zealous, and quite hard-nosed about things, and it all seemed pretty black and white. I left, of course, but a lot of my friends were ordained, over twenty five years ago (Msgr Charles Pope was a classmate and a pal). I will bet that few of them think things are so black and white after all these years pastoring. Say you are a priest counseling a teary woman, who tells you that she and her husband have resorted to things the Church says are wrong to avoid pregnancy for very serious reasons. You glibly mention NFP. She tells you that her last three children were conceived while she was using NFP. What do you do? Recommend ATM (abstinence ’til menopause)? That is heartless and clueless, and if followed destructive to most marriages. Or do you counsel her to trust in the mercy of Christ, and maybe mention that the Church does teach the primacy of conscience?

This young priest had zeal untempered by experience.

And he betrayed a fundamental principle of the moral law: he did not view her in the most charitable light possible. After all, she is a Catholic, who not only attends Mass but lectors, cantors, and sings in the choir. She gives every reason to assume she is a faithful Catholic. Should he not have assumed that even if she was in a committed emotional relationship with another woman that she was faithful to the Church’s teaching, or repentant if she lapsed? She evidently gave no reason to think otherwise; she had served her parish for twelve years and was apparently not agitating for gay sex or whatever. And it is not like a man and a woman in a romantic relationship living together. Romance between a man and a woman should lead to marriage, not cohabitation. But what of the gay person for whom marriage is not a possibility? Must they live in isolation? God said in the garden that it is “not good for Man ( humanity) to be alone”. Only a few are excepted from this general rule, and few are called to be hermits. If unmarried Catholics of the same gender are living together in a committed relationship, their pastor owes them trust. I am sure that this young priest just experienced a rash judgement, and is unaware of the evolving pastoral consideration for the gay faithful.

“Recommend ATM (abstinence ’til menopause)? That is heartless and clueless, and if followed destructive to most marriages.”

It is a sad state of a marriage when a husband or a wife refuses to abstain for the good of the other person.

This must be the sort of marriage a couple of my divorced Knights had- whose wives apparently never understood the meaning of “In sickness and in health” because as soon as serious illness showed up indicating they might need to become a caregiver, they were out and filing for divorce very quickly.

Gay marriage is just the end result of 50 years of the destruction of heterosexual marriage.

First canon law exists to protect faithful from priests and members of the hierarchy. If the situation was as you described (ie women attempting to live chaste lives, and supporting one another), the priest could NOT have forbidden communion, even if it were a grave occasion of sin, into which they were constantly falling. A priest can only refuse communion if the sin is public and MANIFEST. If they had said anything like you are saying, he could not have done it.

Second, the women in question has gone to a notorious gay rights group with this story and the letter she received from he priest. (Whether they were gay rights activists in the past, they certainly are now). The letter from the priest clearly states that there is no sin in having a same sex attraction, and that you only commit a sin when you engage in the behavior. So obviously these women were a same sex couple, not companions.

Third, he spoke to her. You say he did not view her in the most charitable light possible, yet he spoke to her, and gave her every opportunity to explain the situation. These women are not like or similar to the stories you posted in the entry. He based his decision not on her superficial actions (ie lector and member of the choir), but what she told him. Thou shalt not judge goes both ways. He assumed nothing and went to source.

Finally, I would never second guess how a person and his confessor decide to handle same sex attraction. Companionship may help some, but may be occasions of sin for others. General principles are one thing, but you have to deal with each unique soul and his needs. I will only add that the priest where I attended Mass on the feast of the Holy Family, absolutely recommended that if at all possible, no one should enter the married state. He basically was advocating that heterosexuals lead the same type of existence as those with same sex attraction. He quite rightly feels that that the culture is such that it is almost impossible to live out the married state. The couples he counsels are all “traditional” Catholics, and the problems of married committed Catholics are “legion”.

“I will only add that the priest where I attended Mass on the feast of the Holy Family, absolutely recommended that if at all possible, no one should enter the married state.”

To me, that is incredibly sad. I’m married, not at all perfect, a sinner just like the rest of humanity, but I view my marriage as the most amazing gift and am continuously grateful to God for it. I’m nearly a quarter of a century into it (as well as many children into it), and I still feel this way. I don’t denigrate the single life, by any means, but I was not called to it.

It is very hard for me to wrap my head around counseling the vast majority of people to remain single because married life is almost impossible. No doubt chaste single life is, too. After all, being completely sinless IS impossible for us. Life in general is fairly impossible, for that matter. It always has been.

I love being married. That’s not to say we haven’t had our struggles, but it has all been worth it, every single bit of it. I’m no better than your average joe on the street. I just committed to it and married a good guy and a great friend. I don’t consider myself extraordinary or particularly gifted.

Perhaps part of the problem is that people need a resetting of expectations for marriage. Nothing in this life is perfect. God’s grace helps us get through all the curveballs thrown at us in this life, whether married or single. A sense of humor and remembering to be grateful on a daily basis help greatly, too.

Neither of us know all the details of what transpired, but it does not appear that the woman was doing anything to draw attention to herself until the priest read the obituary. Let us see what the bishop does in response; I recall a similar situation a few years ago where the priest was reprimanded.

And your priest sounds like a humdinger. I assume that he counseled those unfortunate enough to already be married to avoid having children; after all, the culture is such that raising sensible children is almost impossible, and the problems of children are legion.

“I will only add that the priest where I attended Mass on the feast of the Holy Family, absolutely recommended that if at all possible, no one should enter the married state. He basically was advocating that heterosexuals lead the same type of existence as those with same sex attraction. He quite rightly feels that that the culture is such that it is almost impossible to live out the married state. The couples he counsels are all “traditional” Catholics, and the problems of married committed Catholics are “legion”.”

I hope that, come Holy Thursday, this priest will absolutely recommend that if at all possible, no man should enter the priesthood, because the current culture is such that it is almost impossible to live out the priesthood, and the problems of priests are legion.

Here is an interesting blog for gay Catholics who want to live within Church teaching but who are critical of ‘social conservative’ Catholic culture. spiritualfriendship.org It is refreshing to read such thoughtful and creative writing on sexuality.

Are these Catholics. I read one of the recent posts and comments, and they seemed to be Protestants of different flavors. It was quite heart breaking. I can not imagine how someone could struggle with this and not have the Sacraments.

Timeless truth is timeless and heirarchical–permenent, eternal, inflexible–if that were not so, God could not be good. And He certainly is good. If truth were in any way flexible, Christ would not have had to die for our sins.

The Bible is utterly clear that homosexuality is a terrible offense to God, and excludes a person from the Kingdom of Heaven. God cannot violate His own nature.

As to the Catholic Church enforcing church discipline in other areas as well–Amen! They should renew the practice immediately.

Ironically, as the “trad”dish side of my social networks was exploding with condemnation for this woman and props for the priest, a popular “advice priest” addressed a m/f couple who asked if it was sinful to live together before marriage so long as they had separate bedrooms and remained chaste. He said it was not, though be careful. To which I wanted to know, does anyone know for sure that this pair of women was NOT chaste? Did someone ask? (of course it’s a catch 22 because asking would be pretty out of line as well.) It’s not at all outlandish to think they might be completely celibate life partners. If you’ve ever had friends who were lesbians of a certain age, you’ll know it’s not outlandish in the slightest, or unusual.

It seems like some people take a lot of joy in protecting Jesus from having contact with the sinners–or at least they think they are doing this. Is charity no longer one of the virtues in their book? At some point you have to just let go and let people grapple with their own consciences. The control freak factor among the trads I know is out of this world. It’s nuts.

That was my point exactly, Mutti. To presume that because two people live together in some sort of supportive relationship that they are sinning is just wrong. But aren’t most women (and men) in these sort of relationships sinning sexually? Probably, but most couples who have two kids after fifteen years of marriage are sinning in the eyes of the Church, and most single Catholics sin too. But to presume that any particular person or couple is doing so is making a presumptuous judgement, unless they are boasting about it or challenging Church teaching publicly. This is especially important if we are to make gay people welcome in the Church; we must be open to other ways of living than perpetual isolation.

Daniel Nichols, I agree with your point of view wholeheartedly. But I fail to see why it is blog worthy? Let alone newsworthy? A priest made an error of judgement. Well, what a surprise! I thought priests were protected from errors of judgement! (Due to their their moral perfection, of course, and the infallibility of the clergy! Let’s not even think about priests whose errors led them into grave and destructive felonies…)

I’ve been a faithful (if quiet) reader of Caelum et Terra ever since I sneaked the magazine out of my dad’s studio in the ’90’s. I have always revelled in its counter-culturalism: the fostering of art, earth, family, as the birthplace of social change, and intellectual dialogue. I’m not exaggerating when I say it was a major influence on the woman I am today.

The blog of the same name has almost nothing in common with that magazine. I see only cranky and slightly cynical commentary on bites of current news.

I wish your lens would return to the real, the truly blog-worthy: the good things that are being done to build new culture. The solution to this current mess is everywhere, small and humble but truly beautiful. It’s present in your iconography and your beautiful children, in young composers (thank you for the Meg Rubin links, lovely!) and young writers and young religious communities. The promise of an awesome generation to come.

It’s possible that I just don’t understand Americans. Forgive me. I belong to a culture that is far too UN-critical of politics. But I remember a time when Caelum et Terra stood for counter-culture, in terms completely independent of the big mess that is modern America.

There is indeed still a touch of clericalism in American culture- I have several more mainstream liberal friends who I disagree with on such issues as married priests and women priests- precisely because they’re so into clericalism that they think the priest is somebody special and spiritually infallible (funny, all except one of my invalidly ordained friends have no schooling or formation, and support pro-choice and other liberal viewpoints. The one exception to that is a man who asked for laicization after becoming a transitory deacon in seminary because he met his wife, and he went to great pains to find an Orthodox Bishop in a schismatic but very Apostolic sect to be ordained mainly to hear confessions of the dying and offer absolution when a Roman priest was not available).

The blog of the same name has almost nothing in common with that magazine. I see only cranky and slightly cynical commentary on bites of current news.

Ouch.

What the blog has in common with the magazine is summarized by the illustration at the top of the page: I am a pilgrim, one who has weathered many storms and suffered various disillusionments and disappointments. As well as one who has experienced many joys and unexpected delights. I still feel hopeful, if more realistic, and am so sorry if I come off as cynical and cranky.

On the other hand, while I insist that there is continuity between the journal and the blog, I am no longer exactly where I was twenty years ago. I am less enamored of the hierarchal Church, for example; who is not, after all we have been through? And at my age I no longer want to farm, though I would like a larger garden and some fruit trees. And while I believe intentional communities, whether lay or religious, are essential for the life of the Church, I am no longer interested in being part of one, and I know that for every one inspired by the Holy Spirit there are a dozen inspired by pride.

It is no secret that I have grown very disappointed with what once looked like an evolving Catholic counterculture, but which turned out to be just another subculture, one in bed with certain political and economic evils, which maybe a non-American does not really grasp. I have grown critical of many of the things I once believed.

But not, I think, the heart of the thing (and thank you Pope Francis).

This story is blogworthy, and newsworthy, because we are in the midst of a new situation in the life of the Church, in which “out” gay people who love Christ are trying to find their place in the Church. It is very important that we not make that too difficult for them, nor insist that the only life available to them is one of isolation.

I am sorry you are disappointed. I am trying my best to hold my head above water and to swim toward the light…

A very good response. I feel very much the same at this point in my life and spiritual journey, and I love the comment about how “for every one inspired by the Holy Spirit there are a dozen inspired by pride.” I have found this to be incredibly true.

Daniel, thank you so much for your reply. It did lend context, and it’s true you’ve weathered more storms than I have! As for Caelum et Terra journal, I didn’t realize that the journal was you. I thought it was a collective. Ditto the blog. Now I feel a bit sheepish for my criticism, because, well, you’re entitled to be cynical on your personal blog!

“…just another subculture, one in bed with certain political and economic evils, which maybe a non-American does not really grasp.”…This is my difficulty exactly. Here in Canada the separation of mainstream culture and Christian counter-culture is extremely sharp. There’s no bed-sharing and no visible “right wing” in the media or anywhere else. Canada is top-down social engineering. (We resemble Scandinavia and the Netherlands in that way.) As chaotic as America is, how great that you still have remnants of democracy, plurality of opinions (even cranky cynical ones!).

I believe that counter-culture, or rather authentic culture—faith, earth, art, family-based culture, is still possible. Caelum et Terra journal was a tiny but important beacon for this cause, your art and writing especially.

I sincerely hope you don’t outgrow all your ideals, Daniel. We’re all awash in a rapidly changing culture, and as you say, the hierarchical church is precious little helpful. We need the grassroots.

Gay issues. Of course, you are absolutely right, what other choice do Christians have but love? We have to follow our Master!

Mary: The magazine was much more of a cooperative venture, though as the editor I did shape it to a large degree. The blog began as an attempt to enlist folks who wrote for the magazine to continue online. However, few took us up on the offer. Then Maclin, the assistant editor who contributed a lot of writing on the blog, exited to do his own, so it was pretty much just me. The thing floundered for a while, with few readers and sparse postings. Then a few years back I decided that it was never going to be an online version of the journal, and I would treat it as a personal blog. I learned how to do various computery things required to operate the website (Maclin did EVERYTHING previously, so’s I could remain pure). Hence it got a lot more visual (Maclin rarely did anything but words) and as I was now free of not offending my friend, who had long been considerably more conservative than I and had grown more so over the years, even as I had drifted in the other direction, the site became a lot more radical and political.

Thus a short history of Caelum et Terra, the blog.

I wouldn’t be so quick to envy Americans. It is pretty crazy here. And we don’t get those stipends or whatever they are called for each child (I have a friend who married a Canadian and resides in northern Ontario), just a tax write-off…The US has little sense of solidarity, with our mythos of rugged individualism and such.

Slight factual correction: I already had my own web site when we started the CetT blog. They were almost exactly a year apart, I see from my archives: the former began in January 2004, the latter in January 2005. Here’s the post at my site announcing the CetT one:

Well, it’s only a rough analogy, since CetT was really your show. And actually I left the mag before it ended. So, not like the Beatles, maybe more like a guitar player leaving to do his own thing. Like, oh, let’s say Clapton leaving John Mayall’s band. :-) :-)